--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Wow. Dembski posts a bunch of misleading anti-green crap, like GM losing $49,000 for every volt sold which is a comically bad misunderstanding of money and numbers, in a post warning about letting ideology interfere with science. How's that for irony?

There's more DembskiMathô in there. †For instance, in the Compact Flourescent Light portion:

† † 3.5B CFLs † †x †5MG Mercury Each † †------- † †17.5 MG

So, in DembskiMath 3,500,000,000 x 5 = 17.5For some value of 17.5.

Less explicitly Christian math would put that figure at closer to 17,500,000 MG = 38,580 pounds of mercury per year and that is the poundage of toxic waste specified "if disposed of improperly".

He's a little off in the "Green Jobs Debacle" too. †According to DocDoc, a $500 million program generated just 1,336 jobs. †This figure is illustrated with a line of 23 men in hard hats and the caption says each figure represents 100 jobs, for a total of ... 2300 jobs, not 1,336.

A more charitable person than myself would say that's at least more accurate than the Bible's age for the earth and universe. †But still, one of DocDoc's Docs is in math. †You would kind of expect a little better. †Or at least a little less TARDy.

Speaking of the Chevy Volt, thanks to a Tea Party cousin, I get all sorts of right wing emails. †I remember one on the Volt which complained that driving a few hundred miles would cost you over $100.00, which makes me wonder how much his electricity costs and who he gets it from. †My best guess is that he gets it from alkaline D cells. Or maybe carbon-zinc.

Worse, the guy then complained that once you reached your destination, you'd have to remain over night while you recharged the car's batteries before you headed back. †He was apparently unaware that the Volt also has a gasoline engine.

--------------Like every other academic field, philosophy of religion has its share of hacks and mediocrities. Edward Feser

The science isnít producing the results they had hoped, so now they attack the religion (as long as it isnít Islam).

I think even Joe cringes when Mung speaks.

Not that that is worth much.

There does seem to be a Tard crisis going on over there.

UD is obviously not Tard self sufficient I suggest they †import some from Tardizikstan.

I believe that in Tardiziksran they follow the first son of Abraham.

...dipped in tardziki.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

The science isnít producing the results they had hoped, so now they attack the religion (as long as it isnít Islam).

I don't read ID but when I do I want to read spluttering and playa hatin on an interview with richard dawkins in playboy that Gordon just *happened* to stumble upon while searching for child porn

OK Which one of you is this fucker

Quote

8Kantian NaturalistOctober 29, 2012 at 4:12 pm

Dawkins is pretty much the worst poster-child for metaphysical naturalism, ever ó heís smug, condescending, and inconsistent. (Not that anyone here would disagree with me ó I just wanted to say that to make clear that he doesnít represent my version of metaphysical naturalism.)

Quote

9Robert ByersOctober 29, 2012 at 4:54 pm

Whatís his opinion on the centrefold chick?Playboy and company should be censored as they are porn.Itís a immoral enemy of Christianity , manhood, and America.

Knpwís more then fundamentalists about the bible etc??Nope.

Awwwww booby can science potato

Tell me you don't feel like an asshole for just reading Booby's posts. There is no way that you can read what that blithering idiot types and not be empirically stupider

this shit will rot your brain boys and girls

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell.†Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

The science isnít producing the results they had hoped, so now they attack the religion (as long as it isnít Islam).

I don't read ID but when I do I want to read spluttering and playa hatin on an interview with richard dawkins in playboy that Gordon just *happened* to stumble upon while searching for child porn

OK Which one of you is this fucker

†

Quote

8Kantian NaturalistOctober 29, 2012 at 4:12 pm

Dawkins is pretty much the worst poster-child for metaphysical naturalism, ever ó heís smug, condescending, and inconsistent. (Not that anyone here would disagree with me ó I just wanted to say that to make clear that he doesnít represent my version of metaphysical naturalism.)

†

Quote

9Robert ByersOctober 29, 2012 at 4:54 pm

Whatís his opinion on the centrefold chick?Playboy and company should be censored as they are porn.Itís a immoral enemy of Christianity , manhood, and America.

Knpwís more then fundamentalists about the bible etc??Nope.

Awwwww booby can science potato

Tell me you don't feel like an asshole for just reading Booby's posts. †There is no way that you can read what that blithering idiot types and not be empirically stupider

this shit will rot your brain boys and girls

If he thinks Playboy is porn he ain't seen nothing like what I've seen yet...

He's the one that if justice would prevail should be censored. But we are magnanimous and love our enemies! As The man said, they don't know what they are doing.

Whatís his opinion on the centrefold chick?Playboy and company should be censored as they are porn.Itís a immoral enemy of Christianity , manhood, and America.

Knpwís more then fundamentalists about the bible etc??Nope.

Maybe it's just me, but the thing I find most revolting in Booby's rant - along with the similar rants by folks like Gordo, Harry Barrington, et al - is the arrogant assumption that their concept of right and wrong is not about the choices we should make about our behaviors and lives, but rather that the concept should be used as a basis of behavioral enslavement and punishment. Screw Jesus' teachings concerning how people ought to behave and noting that folks need to choose to behave that way to get in through the narrow gate - naw...that's just a waste of time and and hindrance to actually making heaven on Earth. No...far better to put a gun to everyone's head and pull the trigger on those who don't go along with his idea of this supposed "utopia". We'll force you all to be "good" through torture and hell!

As the Operative in Serenity said, "We're building a better world...all of them...better worlds." To which Mal replied (though not directly), "Hell, I'm going to grant your greatest wish. I'm going to show you a world without sin."

You know what the real immoral enemy of Christianity, manhood, and America is Booby? The human claim of divine authority and the aftermath that follows the enforcement of said righteous vision.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. †Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

I always read that idiot's ramblings as if it were a letter from his neuron to his other neuron about the way that he wished the world looked and the person he wished he were, but with a melancholy that never goes away because Booby knows two neurons aint much in this world and the shit aint like he wishes it were anyway.

that boy would fuck up an autoerotic asphyxiation

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell.†Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

For once I can agree with the UD moderator. †In actual fact, I have the exact same thought about almost 100% of batshit's link farm spam!

--------------Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

Wow. Dembski posts a bunch of misleading anti-green crap, like GM losing $49,000 for every volt sold which is a comically bad misunderstanding of money and numbers, in a post warning about letting ideology interfere with science. How's that for irony?

There's more DembskiMathô in there. †For instance, in the Compact Flourescent Light portion:

† † 3.5B CFLs † †x †5MG Mercury Each † †------- † †17.5 MG

So, in DembskiMath 3,500,000,000 x 5 = 17.5For some value of 17.5.

Less explicitly Christian math would put that figure at closer to 17,500,000 MG = 38,580 pounds of mercury per year and that is the poundage of toxic waste specified "if disposed of improperly".

This origin of intelligence theory explains the emergent origin of biological diversity and complexity of life on Earth (and detection of these features elsewhere in our Universe) as a product of intelligence, which here self-assembles from nonrandom behavior of matter into multiple self-similar levels of a four requirement cognitive system that over time learns (no select/selected/selection generalizations) and can take a guess (not take a mutation) and physically develops over a lifetime that for molecular intelligence lasts at least billions of years (hence the word evolve became redundant). The theory's unambiguous logical construct allowed for an operational definition for biological species that builds upon the standard accepted operational definition for chemical species, used in chemistry. This unified entire sciences such as Cognitive Theory, Cell Theory, Genetic Theory and Physics Theory including concepts from String Theory. And one requirement of this inherently controlling cognitive mechanism is a confidence level we consciously feel, which is vital to account for, for the theory to also be useful to artists, musicians, clergy and all interested in better knowing who and what we are, how we were created, and by process known as "chromosomal speciation" are related to a progenitor couple hereby colloquially named "Chromosomal Adam and Eve".

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

In living things molecular intelligence is seen controlling what self-assembles from the powerful Krebs Cycle that has become the core metabolic cycle of cells. It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.

At any stage through the assembly cycle a molecule of proper fit may be drawn by molecular forces into a nearby self-assembly interaction to where it fits. At least part of the Reverse Krebs Cycle is catalyzed by volcanic clay/dust/mineral in sunlight making it possible that the cycle was once common planetary chemistry.[11][12]

Where there is no molecular intelligence present the Krebs Cycle would not be able to produce cells and exist regardless of molecular intelligence being present or not to control it. A rudimentary intelligence may actually be challenged to keep up with its production rate but not necessarily be destroyed by periods of overproduction.

Intelligence to exploit this cycle could easily form in its local environment. Once active it would have little problem controlling this existing metabolism. We can here predict self-assembly of a precellular starter mechanism that produces a genome from scratch, instead of a genome first being required to produce this intelligence.

Elsewhere, you've said that you are revising your text constantly. Is this the latest stable text that you have about the citric acid cycle?

In living things molecular intelligence is seen controlling what self-assembles from the powerful Krebs Cycle that has become the core metabolic cycle of cells. It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.

At any stage through the assembly cycle a molecule of proper fit may be drawn by molecular forces into a nearby self-assembly interaction to where it fits. At least part of the Reverse Krebs Cycle is catalyzed by volcanic clay/dust/mineral in sunlight making it possible that the cycle was once common planetary chemistry.[11][12]

Where there is no molecular intelligence present the Krebs Cycle would not be able to produce cells and exist regardless of molecular intelligence being present or not to control it. A rudimentary intelligence may actually be challenged to keep up with its production rate but not necessarily be destroyed by periods of overproduction.

Intelligence to exploit this cycle could easily form in its local environment. Once active it would have little problem controlling this existing metabolism. We can here predict self-assembly of a precellular starter mechanism that produces a genome from scratch, instead of a genome first being required to produce this intelligence.

Elsewhere, you've said that you are revising your text constantly. Is this the latest stable text that you have about the citric acid cycle?

Due to the extreme amount of work putting this theory together (and its politics) I only have time and resources for what most matters to science. Here's my latest project:

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

In living things molecular intelligence is seen controlling what self-assembles from the powerful Krebs Cycle that has become the core metabolic cycle of cells. It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.

At any stage through the assembly cycle a molecule of proper fit may be drawn by molecular forces into a nearby self-assembly interaction to where it fits. At least part of the Reverse Krebs Cycle is catalyzed by volcanic clay/dust/mineral in sunlight making it possible that the cycle was once common planetary chemistry.[11][12]

Where there is no molecular intelligence present the Krebs Cycle would not be able to produce cells and exist regardless of molecular intelligence being present or not to control it. A rudimentary intelligence may actually be challenged to keep up with its production rate but not necessarily be destroyed by periods of overproduction.

Intelligence to exploit this cycle could easily form in its local environment. Once active it would have little problem controlling this existing metabolism. We can here predict self-assembly of a precellular starter mechanism that produces a genome from scratch, instead of a genome first being required to produce this intelligence.

Elsewhere, you've said that you are revising your text constantly. Is this the latest stable text that you have about the citric acid cycle?

Due to the extreme amount of work putting this theory together (and its politics) I only have time and resources for what most matters to science. †Here's my latest project: †

So let's put it another way: Is your statement that I quoted above about the citric acid cycle something that you feel is defensible? Or are you saying that it isn't, but you've been too busy to retract it?

requirement of this inherently controlling cognitive mechanism is a confidence level we consciously feel

Have you met timecube, Gary?

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad